UNLABELLED: In patients with suspected but yet not localized neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), early diagnosis or reliable exclusion is crucial for optimal individual prognosis and therapy. Despite recourse to several imaging modalities, the definite diagnosis of NET can be challenging. Therefore, we tested (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT as a tool for improved diagnosis in a cohort of patients with suspected, nonlocalized NET. METHODS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT recordings were obtained in 104 consecutive patients meeting at least one of the following criteria: clinical suspicion of NET (n = 70), elevated blood levels of tumor markers (n = 49), and image-based suspicion of NET (n = 53). The presence of NET was validated by histopathology (n = 49) or clinical follow-up of 107 ± 59 wk (n = 55). RESULTS: In 36 of 104 patients (35%), NET was histologically verified, most frequently located in the small bowel (10/36), pancreas (8/36), lung (5/36), and stomach (2/36). Twelve patients had tumors of nonneuroendocrine origin, and 7 patients had benign tumors. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT identified NET in 29 of the 36 cases and excluded the presence of a NET in 61 of the 68 non-NET patients, indicating a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 90%. The PET/CT gave a false-positive result in 7 patients and a false-negative in another 7 patients, indicating positive and negative predictive values of 81% and 90%, respectively, and an accuracy of 87%. Chromogranin A levels were significantly higher in both PET-positive patients (1,841 vs. 342 ng/mL; P < 0.05) and patients with verified NET (2,214 vs. 524 ng/mL; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected NETs due to clinical symptoms, elevated levels of tumor markers, or indeterminate tumors suggestive of NET, (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is highly accurate, thus supporting its use in clinical routine diagnostics.
UNLABELLED: In patients with suspected but yet not localized neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), early diagnosis or reliable exclusion is crucial for optimal individual prognosis and therapy. Despite recourse to several imaging modalities, the definite diagnosis of NET can be challenging. Therefore, we tested (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT as a tool for improved diagnosis in a cohort of patients with suspected, nonlocalized NET. METHODS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT recordings were obtained in 104 consecutive patients meeting at least one of the following criteria: clinical suspicion of NET (n = 70), elevated blood levels of tumor markers (n = 49), and image-based suspicion of NET (n = 53). The presence of NET was validated by histopathology (n = 49) or clinical follow-up of 107 ± 59 wk (n = 55). RESULTS: In 36 of 104 patients (35%), NET was histologically verified, most frequently located in the small bowel (10/36), pancreas (8/36), lung (5/36), and stomach (2/36). Twelve patients had tumors of nonneuroendocrine origin, and 7 patients had benign tumors. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT identified NET in 29 of the 36 cases and excluded the presence of a NET in 61 of the 68 non-NET patients, indicating a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 90%. The PET/CT gave a false-positive result in 7 patients and a false-negative in another 7 patients, indicating positive and negative predictive values of 81% and 90%, respectively, and an accuracy of 87%. Chromogranin A levels were significantly higher in both PET-positive patients (1,841 vs. 342 ng/mL; P < 0.05) and patients with verified NET (2,214 vs. 524 ng/mL; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected NETs due to clinical symptoms, elevated levels of tumor markers, or indeterminate tumors suggestive of NET, (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is highly accurate, thus supporting its use in clinical routine diagnostics.
Authors: Ingo Janssen; Elise M Blanchet; Karen Adams; Clara C Chen; Corina M Millo; Peter Herscovitch; David Taieb; Electron Kebebew; Hendrik Lehnert; Antonio T Fojo; Karel Pacak Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Van Binnebeek; B Vanbilloen; K Baete; C Terwinghe; M Koole; F M Mottaghy; P M Clement; L Mortelmans; K Bogaerts; K Haustermans; K Nackaerts; E Van Cutsem; C Verslype; A Verbruggen; C M Deroose Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Angela Spanu; Orazio Schillaci; Bastiana Piras; Diego F Calvisi; Antonio Falchi; Roberta Danieli; Susanna Nuvoli; Franca Dore; Giuseppe Madeddu Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Samira M Sadowski; Vladimir Neychev; Candice Cottle-Delisle; Roxanne Merkel; Lily A Yang; Martha M Quezado; Richard Chang; Electron Kebebew Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2014-11